"Today the ZFS on Linux project reached an important milestone with the official 0.6.1 release! Over two years of use by real users has convinced us ZoL is ready for wide scale deployment on everything from desktops to super computers."

Again, that's not the version in ZoL. Therefore, Oracle re-licensing their bits isn't enough.

Are you saying that Oracle's proprietary ZFS contains code from the 'ZFS on Linux' contributors? Because if not I don't see what you are arguing.

It's funny you should quote that, because apparently you didn't read the whole section. Read a bit further down on how Simon Phipps disagreed with what Danese said. All this goes to support my statements, that there were mixed feelings on this even within Sun, and to negate your position that it was a clear cut deal.

I watched the entire video ways back, so yes I know what was said.

Simon Phipps presented Danese as the one who 'created the CDDL', she then said that when she created the CDDL there were alot of old time engineers which where reluctant to licence it in a GPL compatible manner.

Meanwhile the upper management wanted a copyleft style licence but couldn't wait for GPLv3 to be finalized, note that GPLv2 was never on the table as it would have allowed Linux to use the code, GPLv3 if it had been finalized would likely have been used as that would not be compatible with Linux given that Linux is licenced under GPLv2 only rather than the usual GPLvX or later.

Later during this video Simon Phipps does indeed say that he 'disagrees with Danese to some degree' regarding the licencing, but I believe more in the person who actually drafted the licence (Danese) and spoke directly to the engineers and management while creating it.

Even more so considering that Simon Phipps job was to mend fences with the Free Software community after Schwartz's attacks on GPL (of course later Sun embraced GPL, go figure), and of course the idea that CDDL was explicitly drafted to be GPL incompatible was not going to help him in his job. He had every reason to deny those (Danese's) claims, Danese on the other hand had no reason whatsoever to lie that I can think of.

No doubt in your mind? I can see that - that's the religious bit I was referring to. You come to a fixed conclusion and find evidence to support it. I, for a change, don't know - it might have been, it might not.

What does making conclusions have to do with religion??

And no, I did not come with a 'fixed conclusion', back when I read about all this I had no conclusion, my conclusion is based on the evidence at hand:

1) Sun's Solaris suffers greatly in the marketplace, with Linux being it's main competitor.

2) Sun's management wants a 'copyleft' style licence for their code, they are looking at GPLv3 but it is taking too much time to be finalized, GPLv2 is of course available but that's not even being considered.

Why? Well let's see, GPLv2 means that Sun code licenced under it can be used directly in Linux, that same competitor which is eating their lunch, GPLv3 licenced Sun code on the other hand would not be possible to include in Linux, but it's not ready. Tada! Sun creates a new licence, CDDL, which according to the very creator of that licence (Danese) was crafted to be GPL incompatible.

I came to this conclusion based upon the facts before me, where does this 'religion' you keep yapping about come in? For me it makes perfect sense for Sun not to want their main competitor Linux to be able to use their 'technology'. That's not 'religion', it's common sense.

I don't mean to say that everybody who works on these are religious nuts, only some are (such as yourself) - I should have qualified that, mea culpa.

Describe what you mean by 'religious nuts' and how that applies to the choices these companies have made.

Also I'd like to know what in my reasoning earns me the label 'religious nut'?